Hello Thomas,
On 12-Apr-99 19:05:53, you wrote:
> >>>> I have enough RAM (128 MB) in my Windows machine (98 and NT), so it
> >>>> doesn't HAVE TO swap (if it still does, it's not in my power to stop
> >>>> it) and still it is slow.
> >>> Slow doing what? Loading programs? Which programs?
> >> Loading and executing. All programs. Imagine how much more CPU power
> >> current PCs have compared to 68k CPUs.
> > So, there you have it, Windows has way more software components
> > available for programs and if they use them, they have to be loaded and
> > that takes time. The second time you run the same program it doesn't
> > take that much if the program is based on DLLs. This is not a problem
> > of the OS.
>I said loading AND executing. And do you know how long it takes to load
>Netscape, even on a fast PC?
That was a particularly bad example to defend your argument. The same
version of Netscape takes about the same time to load on Linux.
Besides, since version 4 the same version of Internet Explorer became more
powerful than the correspondent version of Netscape Navigator. Still IE
loads and executes faster than NS.
> >>> Since MUI Windows hardly use Intuition gadgets, the refresh load is
> >>> left all to application. Fortunately, you may still control than for
> >>> MUI programs but you can't do anything for the remaining programs
> >>> including those built-in the OS.
> >> Right. And?
> > Many programs use SMART_REFRESH unconditionally and that leads to a
> > worse memory waste and fragmentation. With graphic cards that got worse
> > on Amiga.
>I don't think so. I do not have problems with this.
I do. I have 24MB of memory and since I got Picasso IV I ran out of memory
much faster than when I used to have use only AGA. I use the same programs
with the same basic video resolution and depth, ie <= 8bit. 24 bit is
prohibitive if I don't get more memory.
> >>> Amiga screens are great, but opening several screens is a najor memory
> >>> waste at the expense of having screen swaping done faster.
> >> Windows does a good job in wasting memory, too.
> > It is often a trade-off of memory for speed.
>Windows eats up much memory AND it is slow.
I wish Amiga browsers be as fast as IE, I wish Amiga word processors be as
fast as Word. I don't sympathize with Microsoft, but I am just being
unbiased here. I don't think it is a problem with the OS but rather the
applications you use.
OTOH, if you mean Windows programs sometimes look retarded to handler user
input, there I agree but that's no worse than MUI based Amiga programs
because in both kinds of programs the user interface input is handled by
the application task rather than by the system task (Intuition on Amiga).
BTW, this is part of the reason why many GUI based Java programs or applets
look slow. That doesn't mean they are slow, that means that don't get
enough CPU to handle the tasks they are in charge. Having to handle the
bulk of the GUI events on the application task is not such a heavy job, but
with all the delays added by how much implicit task switching it require it
makes applications look slow.
This is a very old discussion in the Amiga world. Actually it started when
Stefan Stunz decided to design MUI to handle all the user input. There is
not much point in carrying on this discussion here, except for the fact
that Java GUI based programs will all suffer of that apparent slowlyness
when they are just retarded.
> >>> The way I see it that depends on which tools you use. Anyway, if your
> >> No. I always have to use the Win32 API. Of course, if you use Visual
> >> Basic it may be more easy for you, but your programs runs even slower
> >> then.
> > That depends on what tools you use. Many tools build your software
> > based on C++ classes that require more DLLs than you can guessed.
> > Usually this is a consequence of object based programming. Sometimes
> > you only need a feature of some object but you have to load all the
> > code that implements the object no matter what. Once again this is not
> > the OS fault.
>Once again: Did you use the Win32 API ever? If yes, then you know, what I
>mean. Unnecessary bloat and complicated.
What I know is that if you stick to Windows basic libraries your programs
won't get bloated as you mean. But if you start blindly using someone
else's C++ classes that you have no idea of how much code their usage imply
linking with or how many DLL's they require, you can only blame yourself of
having used such classes and libraries.
The same goes for Amiga programming and everything else. If you start
using for instance all MUI gadgets without having a clue of how many
libraries you will have to load, you can only blame yourself for your
implementation options.
> >>> programs do a lot more things they tend to get larger and take longer
> >>> to load. Therefore it is silly in pointing the relevance of the fact
> >>> that for instance FinalWriter loads much faster than Microsoft Word,
> >>> because FinalWriter misses a lot of important Word's features.
> >> That's old. But still Windows and its applications are bloatware.
> > That's what the market is requiring, more and more powerful
> > applications. Often I regret that Finalwriter never got as bloated and
> > Microsoft Word. See what I mean?
>"Bloat" is not the same as "powerful".
What for one person is powerful, for somebody it maybe needlessly bloated.
A lot of people claim that they don't need all MS Word features and
therefore it is bloated. OTOH they need features that FinalWriter doesn't
have but Word does. This is when bloated becomes irrelevant.
> >>>> If you use an 68K emulator, you don't have to switch between 2 CPUs.
> >>> A 68K emulator can't emulate all the OS calls even if you can claim it
> >>> can emulate all calls. Amiga OS is very dependent on the single CPU
> >>> architechture.
> >> ??? An 68k emulator emulates the 68k CPU. Nothing more, nothing less. How
> >> do you think the upcoming Phase5 G3 cards work? If you put one of these
> >> in an A4000 then there is no 68k CPU left.
> > I don't know how G3 boards work, but so far all PPC cards leave both
> > CPUs running. If you disable the 68k and only have a PPC running of
> > cource it doesn't make sense to do context swaping because you only
> > have one context anyway it is inherently slow running context because
> > it is emulated. Nothing new here. Even the first PowerMacs are slower
> > than the existing 68k based Macs.
>Ehhh, you know on which PPCs the emulated 68k was slow? That was
>PPC601/66. Welcome to 1999 and to G3/400!
You know compared to which the first PPC based Macs were slow? That was
68020/30 Macs. Because it took some time until most of the programs were
released for PPC, Apple decided to keep 68040 line for quite some time as
the emulation could not beat running on native 68040.
Regards,
Manuel Lemos
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.e-na.net/the_author.html
PGP key: finger:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe daytona-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
